M1 - Military Action

[Ruth Murphy]

"That this House compels the government to honour the promise it made in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech that Parliament is guaranteed a vote on any proposed military intervention to be undertaken by Her Majesty's Armed Forces except in circumstances of direct self defence."

[Ruth Murphy]

Mr. Speaker,

I beg to move this as an opposition day motion. 

[Brown]

HEAR HEAR

[Sir Grant Kingston]

HEAR HEAR HEAR!

[Macmillan]

ORDER! Debate shall be set at [irl 4 days] then conclude with a division.

[Conrad]

Mr Speaker,

I would like to rise in the House today to set the record straight with regards to where the Government positions itself on this issue. Throughout this debate, inside and outside of this House, we have heard many different stories of where the Government sits on this issue. Let me tell this House. We believe that a precedent has now been created following our interventions in Iraq and subsequent engagements, that this House should have a vote to indicate whether or not it supports the Governments use of the royal prerogative to deploy Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

What this Government will not support is the unnecessary shackling of the Royal Prerogative on the deployment of the armed forces, and I feel that the resolution laid before the house by the Right Honourable Lady is ill-defined in its intention. Something of this magnitude, of this scale, both for the present and indeed the future should be laid out in more than a motion... or at the very least... a more detailed one.

If the Right Honourable Lady will allow me to say that the Government is absolutely committed to providing parliament a detailed say on military action and so I must tell her that the government will be tabling an amendment to her motion, which will provide more clarity, not only for this Government but future governments as well.

[Brown]

Mr. Speaker,

The Prime Minister's feeble reply is emblematic of the Government's continued contradiction on policy positions--which far exceed this one issue. The Prime Minister stated in his reply "...we have heard many different stories of where the Government sits on this issue." Well, on that point at least, he is quite right. While he made very clear in an answer to my question that he would not commit to a vote on the use of military force in an non-exigent circumstance, he made very clear that the most he would commit to is a Ministerial Statement.

Mr. Speaker, a Ministerial Statement is quite satisfactory for many matters that are vital but which do not require a full vote of the House--but it is not satisfactory for the use of armed forces--putting our brave men and women in harms way in what, in all likelihood, would become a prolonged engagement.

I commend the leader of the Liberal Democrats for putting forward this common sense motion--with this important proviso that this motion would not require the Government to seek immediate consent of this House in the unlikely event of a direct invasion or attack on British soil.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues his Government's practice of speaking out of both sides of its mouth with contradictory and confusing language. In his reply, the Prime Minister states that "We believe that a precedent has now been created following our interventions in Iraq and subsequent engagements, that this House should have a vote to indicate whether or not it supports the Governments use of the royal prerogative to deploy Her Majesty's Armed Forces" and then, in subsequent breath, says he opposes this resolution.

Mr. Speaker--if the Prime Minister is confused about why the Government is rightly viewed in this House and in the media as having inconsistent positions on issue--perhaps he should look in a mirror to discover the source of this problem.

What is clear is that the Government's stated position is that a vote should rightly take place--and this motion ensures that this happens. Therefore, if the Government wishes to remain consistent in this position--it should support this motion.

I appeal to members opposite to support this resolution to ensure that Parliament has its say on the potential use of military force.

I would further say to this House that we must do more, by not just addressing the issue before us now--but the use of prerogative powers in future related to war as well. I support this motion before us today wholeheartedly and I will vote for it--but we can and we must do more to ensure that this House has a say in all non-exigent uses of this power in the future.

[James Byrne]

Mr Speaker,

 

I welcome the motion brought before this house by the member for Kingston & Surbiton. The government has unfortunately remained consistently elusive on the matter of their commitment to what they said in the Queen’s Speech when it comes to the role of the house in holding the government accountable and having the say on whether Britain does engage in the use of military force. Labour, under our new leadership, has called for a War Powers Act to ensure these powers are in the hands of the house to ensure true accountability and scrutiny for the most serious decision anyone in this house can be called upon to make.

Labour will support the motion put before this house and continue to push for the powers on the use of military force to be with this house.

[Sir Grant Kingston]

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to start by commending the Liberal Democrats for tabling this important motion for debate. It is clear by the Prime Minister’s response that he knows his Government has backed themselves into a corner. If his Government will not support the “unnecessary shackling of the Royal Prerogative on the deployment of the armed forces” - my question is… why did they include it in their Queen’s Speech at the beginning of this Parliament?

My Honourable Friend, the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, is totally correct - if the Government is going to show any sign of consistency in their role, they must support this motion. But as I have said, they have backed themselves into a corner and likely will not do so.

I am a firm believer that the decision to take military intervention should always lie in the hands of the Members of this House, and the Government has a choice now to reaffirm this position that they included in the Queen’s Speech - otherwise they run the risk of having misled the House.

[Macmillan]

DIVISION! Clear the Lobbies!